Bitch Media - Ms.http://bitchmagazine.org/taxonomy/term/377/0
enDouchebag Decree: Birth Control Backlashhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-birth-control-backlash
<p><a title="douchedecree by bitch_magazine, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitchmagazine/3008635758/"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/3008635758_b2137f505e_o.png" alt="Douchebag decree logo reads Ye Olde Douchebag Decree. Bitch hereby declares the following person a total douchebag" height="199" width="494" /></a></p>
<p>It's a little embarrassing to call out Fox News on the Douchebag Decree, because that channel is basically a love letter to this column: "Dear Douchebag Decree, I will always be here for you. You will never be lonely as long as I'm around. Love always, Fox News." But it's also embarrassing to let the outrageously offensive commentary go without reminding the Internet that we DON'T just shake our heads and sigh every time Bill O' Reilly et al. run their fool mouths. We get mad as hell, and we tell people about it. On the Douche slab this week are Dana Perino and the rest of the commentators on "The Five," for their responses to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement that insurance cover the cost of birth control.</p>
<p>August 1st was the OPPOSITE of a douche-y day, for a second, when HHS announced an addition to last year's <a title="Win!" href="http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html" target="_blank">Affordable Care Act</a>, which will provide women with insurance access to reproductive health care (e.g., birth control, HIV screening and counseling, HPV DNA tests, breastfeeding support, etc) at no extra cost. "WOOHOO!", I thought. <a title="Opposite of Win!" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amyFStR0wE8" target="_blank">"LET'S MAKE FUN OF WOMEN AND ESPECIALLY POOR WOMEN!"</a>, thought Fox News. The excerpt linked above was from The Five, Fox's new show hosted by Dana Perino wherein five commentators get together and stereotype each other and themselves into a vortex of offensive, interrupting pseudo-discussion. A choice soundbite:</p>
<blockquote><p>Who's going to use free birth control? The people who can't afford it. So, the Left has figured out a way to eradicate the poor, and it's by ERADICATING THE POOR!"</p></blockquote>
<p>Caps lock mine, stupidity Greg Gutfeld's. Perino, who had just gotten done saying she was irritated by "free" birth control because she saw lots of people who could "buy new shoes," and felt like Americans needed to prioritize, laughs during Gutfeld's not-even-close-to-funny comment. Also NO ONE MENTIONED THAT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY FREE BIRTH CONTROL. The HHS Act removes co-pays for women who are <em>already insured. </em>Insurance is ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT NOT FREE. But let's not even start that rant, because the Five go on to argue that "Women should be responsible for their own ovaries," and should not expect taxpayers to cover their breast pumps and birth control, and that HHS is unnecessary because poor women can already get free birth control because they're poor. Ok, so NOW let's start ranting.</p>
<p>First of all, Ye Douchebags, don't you dare argue for independent female organs unless you argue IN THE SAME BREATH for the independence to empty said organs at a woman's own discretion. Independence, like insurance, only works with full coverage.</p>
<p>Next, all birth controls (and breast pumps, but let's pick our battles) are not created equal, and the generics being offered at no or little cost to low-income women are not necessarily the most effective or even SAFEST options for any given patient. I know how you feel about "choice," Fox News, so it's not surprising you wouldn't even think of giving medical choices to people who are all icky and poor and stuff, but you sound like a bunch of idiots when you leave it out on TV.</p>
<p>And finally, there was this egregious, classist, privileged loogey of a comment from Perino herself, via the <a title="Mmm. Mocha Tri-Cyclen." href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/08/02/birth-control-pills-or-a-frappuccino/" target="_blank">Ms. blog</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>"If you can afford a $5 Frappucino, you can afford a $5 copay."</p></blockquote>
<p>Mmm. Mocha Tri-Cyclen. But really. This sort of overly-pithy, dismissive language is infuriating in news. Why do research, when Dana Perino sounds so much like she knows everything about coffee drinks AND my birth control options?! Um... because she doesn't actually know a damn thing. Some women have low co-pays on their generic BC pills, but, as was mentioned above, this limits their choice of pill to whatever CAN be paid for with five dollars, side effects and personal compatibility aside. MANY women, however, pay much more, as much as $70 for alternatives like NuvaRings or IUDs. Plus A HELLUVA LOT OF PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD A FRAPPUCINO <span style="text-decoration: underline;">OR</span> BIRTH CONTROL EVEN IF THEY COST FIVE DOLLARS.</p>
<p>But that brings us back to poor women (perhaps <a title="Bill O' Douchebag" href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201107210035" target="_blank">"blasted" women</a>, too...), and from watching Fox News we've learned that the poor will eradicate themselves any day now. Bring on the new shoes and Frappucinos!!</p>
<p>For a little more on this rant, check out this clip from last night's <em>Colbert Report</em>. Looks we're in agreement as to who deserved this week's Douchebag Decree:</p>
<div style="background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 368px;">
<div style="padding: 4px;"><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:393824" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." height="293" width="360">
<p style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 4px; margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 0px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan">The Colbert Report</a></strong><br />Get More: <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/">Colbert Report Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor &amp; Satire Blog</a>,<a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/video">Video Archive</a></p>
</embed></div>
</div>
<p><strong>Previously: </strong><a href="/post/douchebag-decree-chick-beer-the-beer-for-women">Chick Beer, the "Beer for Women"</a>, <strong> </strong><a href="/post/douchebag-decree-4">Literally Douchey Edition</a>,</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-birth-control-backlash#commentsBill O'Reillybirth controlbirth control fundingFox NewsMs.Douchebag Decree Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:49:10 +0000Katie Presley11688 at http://bitchmagazine.orgI Am, in Fact, Saying No to WWYMD?'s Abstinence-Promoting Underwearhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/i-am-in-fact-saying-no-to-wwymds-abstinence-promoting-underwear
<p>I <a title="Ms.: New Line of Tween Panties Promotes... Abstinence?" href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/14/new-line-of-tween-panties-promotes-abstinence/">read about</a> <em>Ms. </em>blogger <a title="Ms. profile: Annie Shields" href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/author/annieshields/">Annie Shields</a>' strange online experience last week with a combination of amusement and horror:</p>
<blockquote><p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5303/5628995731_752b5fb3bb.jpg" alt="WWYMD Ms. tweet" align="left" width="278" height="136" hspace="10" />The other day, <a class="external" href="http://twitter.com/msmagazine" target="_blank">@msmagazine</a> received this response (left) to a tweet about sexual assault on college campuses–a topic we've been covering a lot lately <em>[...]</em> So, naturally, we clicked. And what we found was a <a class="external" href="http://www.wwymd.com/" target="_blank">frilly pink website</a> devoted to selling underwear.</p></blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a title="What Would Your Mother Do? homepage" href="http://www.wwymd.com/shop/">What Would Your Mother Do? Conversation Underwear</a> sells panties and t-shirts in stereotypically girly colors such as white, "pale mint" and "lavender pink," adorned with the phrases "Not tonight," "Zip it!" and "Dream on!"</p>
<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5628995737_28be30f629.jpg" alt="WWYMD Not tonight" width="306" height="239" /></p>
<p><em>Suggestive pose, sans face... to show that she's NOT a sex object?</em></p>
<p>My first thought (well, after "I can't believe they topped the <a title="Cafepress: Choose Life Classic Thong" href="http://www.cafepress.com/celebratees.91046058">anti-abortion thongs</a>") was that the name of the company, What Would Your Mother Do?, is a loaded and bizarre one. Most mothers have probably had sex. Just... logically speaking. Is "mothers" supposed to be shorthand for an older generation of women, playing into the tired assumption that the unmarried never played around until these last few decades (say, when <em><a title="IMDb: &quot;Fast Times at Ridgemont High&quot; (1982)" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083929/">Fast Times at Ridgemont High</a> </em>came out)? Are they just hoping their customers will think of their parents mid-makeout and not be able to shake the ick factor?</p>
<p>Then again, the name is an obvious play off of the <a title="What Would Jesus Do? homepage" href="http://www.whatwouldjesusdo.com/">"What Would Jesus Do?"</a> bracelets and their cousins. Although WWYMD? is <a title="What Would Your Mother Do?: About Us" href="http://www.wwymd.com/shop/cmspage.php?page_id=3">strategically evasive</a> about their agenda, the name and the panties' literal messages give a pretty good clue as to what "family morals" they're eager to "reinforce" (a word that, again, implies that young people have gone off their rightful rails): the no-sex-is-good-sex ones. All of which becomes more confusing when WWYMD? describes itself as "One part Victorian (who are we kidding?), three parts frisky" and adds that they chose boy shorts because they're "hot right now." The <a title="What Would Your Mother Do?: Blog: TOO COMFY" href="http://www.wwymd.com/blog/2011/02/too-comfy/">blog</a> even describes their <em>water bottles </em>as "elegant, curvy, and sexy." While abstinence is a legitimate choice, something is fundamentally wrong with sexualizing it. (Are you listening, <a title="Bitch Popaganda: It Should Be A Crime Edition" href="/post/bitch-popaganda">Candies?</a>) It promotes the dehumanizing idea that women, and girls, are only desirable due to what they can offer sexually, be it now or post-marriage. How is reducing a woman to her fetishized chastity any better than telling her she needs to be promiscuous to be loved?</p>
<p>While "Not tonight" pushes the delayed-gratification message especially hard, I'm even more disturbed by "Dream on," which explicitly encourages sexual fantasies about the chaste. This design, though, takes the problematic cake:</p>
<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5628995739_26068242b8.jpg" alt="WWYMD Zip it" width="261" height="371" /></p>
<p><em>How... why... I don't even. Even has left the building.</em></p>
<p>The subtitle "conversation underwear" begs the question: conversations with <em>whom</em>? You'd think, given the name, that the answer would be "their mothers," but the ads repeatedly show panty-clad young women posing with a fully-clothed man. Yes, that's <em>a </em>fully-clothed man, as in, always the same one, while there are six different female models posing around him, sometimes with his hand hovering millimeters away from their WWYMD? undies. (All appear to be white, only one is non-blonde, and the panties themselves only come in one small size, if you weren't sure who WWYMD? considers the proper virgin.) Skivvy-sparked conversations about non-sex are apparently supposed to take place with the wearers' heterosexual love interests, because there's no mom in sight, unless you count WWYMD?'s age-ambiguous logo:</p>
<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5628995741_7a5a967ed7.jpg" alt="WWYMD logo" width="161" height="401" /></p>
<p><em>No, it's not the latest cover for </em><a title="Bitch: Forever Your Girl: The Legacy of Helen Andelin's Fascinating Womanhood" href="/article/forever-your-girl">Fascinating Womanhood</a>.<em> It's the latest in insulting pseudo-religious fashion!</em></p>
<p>We get no explanation as to how the products make these "conversations" happen with, as the song in some of the <a title="YouTube profile: wwymdCOM" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/wwymdCOM">promotional videos</a> says, "No kiss, no touch, no makin' out." The waistband placement of the messages makes me wonder if they're meant to show <em>above </em>pants or skirts, but we can't really know considering that WWYMD?'s models never get that far dressed. From the pastel colors to the pithy declarations, the undies recall Conversation Hearts candies, which are meant to be picked up, read and consumed rather than provoking much of a discussion at all.</p>
<p>Perhaps most interestingly, WWYMD? <a href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/14/new-line-of-tween-panties-promotes-abstinence/#IDComment142955309">quickly commented</a> on Shields' piece to tell her they were "afraid [she'd] missed the message" and point out that the word "abstinence" does not appear on the site. Shields <a href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/14/new-line-of-tween-panties-promotes-abstinence/#IDComment143009964">astutely responded</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>You can't just say that the message on a pair of panties is open for interpretation when the message is "Not Tonight." That's not open for interpretation. No means no. If these aren't necessarily meant to promote abstaining from sex, then they shouldn't say "Not Tonight." <em>[...]</em> If these are just supposed to remind girls to make wise choices, then they should say "Make Wise Choices!" But they don't, they say things like "Zip It!"</p></blockquote>
<p>Hear, hear. For underwear that purports to be comfortable, WWYMD? leaves me awfully uneasy.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<p>"New Line of Tween Panties Promotes... Abstinence?" [<a title="Ms.: New Line of Tween Panties Promotes... Abstinence?" href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/04/14/new-line-of-tween-panties-promotes-abstinence/">Ms.</a>]</p>
<p>What Would Your Mother Do?'s promotional videos are <a title="YouTube video: WWYMD pre-photo shoot" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXeAC6cc0M&amp;feature=related">here</a> and <a title="YouTube video: WWYMD Photoshoot" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLisGM27GxE&amp;feature=player_embedded">here</a>. Don't say I didn't warn you.</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/i-am-in-fact-saying-no-to-wwymds-abstinence-promoting-underwear#commentsabstinencemother-daughter relationshipsMs.teenage girlhoodunderwearwtf?Sex and SexualityTue, 19 Apr 2011 18:04:28 +0000Deb Jannerson9892 at http://bitchmagazine.orgWhee! #1http://bitchmagazine.org/article/whee-1
<div class="field field-type-text field-field-subtitle">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
Some Cockle-Warming Tidbits </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-type-text field-field-public-content-flag">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
Publicly Accessible Content </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-issue-reference">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/issue/1">Premiere</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-type-text field-field-teaser">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>We love Claire from <em>90210</em>. She's so brainy; she's so hot. She never plays dumb for the boys and she gets to fuck them anyway...<br />
Yay for the recent changes in <em>Ms</em>. Not that we didn't adore it before, but now we're foaming at the mouth with love...<br />
Good for NBC for making visible the covert racism of <em>Friends</em> in a promo for David Schwimmer's <em>SNL</em> appearance...<br />
We were pleasantly surprised by a recent "What Women Want" roundtable in <em>GQ</em> (August 1995)...</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>We love Claire from <em>90210</em>. She's so brainy; she's so hot. She never plays dumb for the boys and she gets to fuck them anyway. She even gets to mingle her smarts and her sexuality. After an articulate theoretical discourse on a piece of art that she admires, she clarifies, for those who didn't get it, "In other words, it makes me horny." Go, girl.</p>
<p>A recent promo for <em>Bless This House</em>: mother says to daughter, "If a boy doesn't take no for an answer, you can kill him by jamming his nose up through his face." Daughter: "Cool." Yup. Cool.</p>
<p>Yay for the recent changes in <em>Ms</em>. Not that we didn't adore it before, but now we're foaming at the mouth with love. The expanded pop culture coverage rocks—take a gander at "Talk TV: How Women's Issues Are Turned into Trash" (September/October) and "We've Come a Long Way. Maybe," (November/ December). And don't miss the whole section on sex...</p>
<p>We can't believe we're about to praise an ad, but here goes...that new Lee Jeans ad, with the guy with the nice butt down on his hands and knees plucking dandelions out of the grass while a woman watches from her window and blows more dandelion seeds down on the lawn—well, we think it affirms female scopophilic pleasure and sexual agency.</p>
<p>Good for NBC for making visible the covert racism of <em>Friends</em> in a promo for David Schwimmer's <em>SNL</em> appearance: "Watch <em>Saturday Night Live</em> and see me do things you've never seen before," he proclaims. "Like talk to a black person?" asks the black man standing next to him. "Ouch," says Schwimmer. But as nice as it is that the lily-whiteness of <em>Friends</em> has been publicly recognized, one fifteen-second spot can't make up for it. Maybe the show could be integrated— or the network could bring us "The One Where They Talk About Why They Don't Know Any Non-White People." </p>
<p>Remember how Mrs. Roper was always the butt of jokes because she (gasp!) wanted to have sex with her husband? Well, sitcom women are finally allowed to want sex without being laughed off the soundstage. A recent exchange on <em>Wings</em>:<br />
Joe: What do you want to do now?<br />
Helen: (suggestively) We could go upstairs...<br />
Joe: (obliviously) Yeah, the TV's up there.<br />
Ok, maybe you had to be there. But even though it doesn't translate too well from the little screen, the fact remains that the joke was on Joe for not cluing into his wife's desire—not on Helen for feeling it. </p>
<p>We were pleasantly surprised by a recent "What Women Want" roundtable in <em>GQ</em> (August 1995). The women spoke articulately and intelligently about their lives. The moderator didn't intrude or steer the discussion. Good. Then male readers got all up in arms in their letters about how unpleasant and man-hating the participants were. News flash, guys: they were just being honest.</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/whee-1#comments90210advertisingFriendsMs.NBCpraiseracesexualitySocial commentarystereotypesColumnMon, 01 Jan 1996 05:00:00 +0000Kyla95 at http://bitchmagazine.org